Latest Headlines
- Trump Backs Jimmy Patronis For Gaetz Seat; Michelle Salzman Not Running
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To Prison For Drug Possession, Evidence Tampering, Fleeing
- A Warming Trend To Begin Thanksgiving Week
- Central High Cheerleaders Perform At Halftime Of Alabama Game
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
- Hundreds Of Families Receive Thanksgiving Meal During Food Distribution
- Two Northview High Career Academies Create Food Cart
- Escambia County Corrections Welcomes 12 New Officer Trainees
- Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
- Food Distribution Held Friday In Walnut Hill, Saturday In Cantonment
Taxpayer Tab In Drug Testing Lawsuit Tops $1.5 Million
June 24, 2015
Florida taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1.5 million in legal fees — including nearly $1 million to civil-rights lawyers — because of Gov. Rick Scott’s failed push to force welfare applicants and tens of thousands of state workers to submit to suspicionless drug tests.
The state agreed earlier this month to pay $600,000 to the Florida Justice Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which represented a single father who sued the Department of Children and Families over a 2011 welfare drug-testing law. The payment, issued this week, was part of a settlement in the case, abandoned by Scott earlier this year after four years of litigation and multiple court decisions striking down the law.
A federal appeals court ruled in December that the state’s mandatory, suspicionless drug testing of applicants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program is an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. After the ruling, Scott decided to walk away from the lawsuit.
“We are proud to have brought an end to the policy,” Florida Justice Institute Executive Director Randall Berg said.
Other costs in the welfare drug-testing case totaled at least $309,000, including $13,300 for Avram Mack, a psychiatrist and Georgetown University School of Medicine professor whose testimony was banned by a judge. The court concluded that Mack was not qualified to be an expert in the case.
The state also paid the GrayRobinson law firm at least $160,000 to represent the Department of Children and Families.
The welfare drug-testing law “shamelessly exploited ugly stereotypes about poor people,” ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said.
“The settlement on our attorneys’ fees today finally closes the book on this ugly story and ensures that Floridians who apply for temporary assistance — or any other public benefit — won’t have to be subjected to invasive, humiliating and unconstitutional urine tests without cause or suspicion,” Simon said.
In a separate case, Scott and lawyers representing a state workers’ union reached agreement this spring on the types of Florida government employees who can be forced to undergo suspicionless drug tests. The union, represented by the ACLU, sued Scott after he issued an executive order shortly after taking office in 2011 ordering all workers in agencies under his control, as well as job applicants, to undergo random drug screens.
A federal judge put the policy on hold after the ACLU filed suit that summer, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Scott could not constitutionally justify drug testing for all types of state employees without a reason, though it said testing could occur for some workers such as those in “safety-sensitive” positions. The appeals court ordered Scott and lawyers for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, to come up with a list of jobs that could be subject to testing.
Under a settlement agreement filed in federal court in April, the state agreed to pay the ACLU $375,000 in legal costs for the drawn-out litigation and to limit the drug tests to about 7,000 workers in 157 different job classes, a fraction of the 34,000 employees Scott’s blanket policy was intended to cover.
The taxpayer tab for that lawsuit totaled at least $675,000, including $180,000 for a private lawyer hired by the state, Thomas Bishop, and $120,000 for a special master to oversee the negotiations with the ACLU.
The amount spent on both lawsuits — at least $1.5 million — would cover about 8,900 days of residential substance-abuse treatment, based on average costs for in-patient treatment in Florida.
by Dara Kara, The News Service of Florida
Comments
13 Responses to “Taxpayer Tab In Drug Testing Lawsuit Tops $1.5 Million”
Meanwhile state corrections goes yet another year I think this makes the ninth year without a raise but here’s the good news we get random drug tested regularly
Even if welfare recipients were to fail a mandatory drug screening the funds would just be released to another family member, which currently happens now for reasons other than drugs. The other factor to consider is the children that gov’t. assistance is “intended” to support. Essentially, the government is not going to deprive needy children even if the families choose to do so unlawfully. Unfortunately, there is abuse to some degree of every system in America, and solutions will be difficult to find until we reform it completely.
Do employees of the major companies receiving tax breaks also have to submit to drug tests? They receive much more than the recipients of TANF.
This policy by scott was another failed attempt to appease his party members. He stinks as a governor. He bought the election and continues to screw the common citizen.
Way to go governor, the lawyers are laughing and smoking fat cigars over the easy payday, you should pay this bill from your own personal fat coffers…
Given the stats correlating poverty and drug abuse (not the ugly stereotypes but the research), it should at some point become a 4th Amendment question of Probable Cause.
“The amount spent on both lawsuits — at least $1.5 million — would cover about 8,900 days of residential substance-abuse treatment, based on average costs for in-patient treatment in Florida.”
For whom? Taxpayer funded treatment for all of the taxpayer-subsidized who do not use and abuse drugs?
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution–read it. It is the most important Amendment, and the one the “Law & Order” crowd most frequently forgets about and would throw away in pursuit of their attempts to impose their own morality on others..
Gov. Scott has a penchant for doomed legal challenges that have cost Florida’s taxpayers millions. Some conservative.
Just because a person on gov’t assistance isn’t always a “bum” doesn’t mean that the recipient of such funds is the only one allowed to be unhappy about the situation. Whether it’s through their paycheck or via groceries disappearing from the house and rising utility costs due to a long-term guest, it’s difficult for hardworking, budgeting individuals to consistently justify giving up money they desperately need to someone who likely is, or even may be, spending what money he does have on drugs and pleasures instead of improving his situation. Put simply: If it’s my money, it’s my business whether or not you’re getting high with it.
No “john”…everyone who works does NOT have to comply with a preemployment drug screen. And if you actually read the story, you’ll see that part of the lawsuit was about exactly that!
And “Lifendason”, “Just more Democrats wanting to give free(lol) stuff to get a vote off the taxpayers backs”. Really? You mean like YOUR foodstamps???? Republicans want to take those away. I am always amazed how you people constantly vote against your interests.
@fred most of them yes.
instead of wasting money on litigation, the governor should have just eliminated all state welfare. then there would be nobody to drug test for state welfare and that ’s where the real savings would be; cutting off the parasites from their handouts. let the states who want to have an ever-growing welfare population offer taxpayer-funded welfare and those who vote for a living will move there, leaving florida taxpayers with a smaller number of freeloaders and a higher number of productive people.
@john so everyone who receives government assistance is a bum?
I actually receive Food Stamps and am very grateful. I would have no problem submitting to a drug test any day, why, because I DON’T DO DRUGS!!
Just more Democrats wanting to give free(lol) stuff to get a vote off of the taxpayers backs.
Everyone who WORKS has to comply with a preemployment drug screen why should these BUMS on government assistance be any different, I’ll tell you why because some don’t won’t others to know how bad the problem really is!!